Friday, 18 July 2014

No Longer Libel So Don't Call It Libel

On Thursday, 10JUL14, we made the following appeal as a comment in the blog and also on Facebook:

“We urge people to STOP using the terms LIBEL or DEFAMATION when referring to the ongoing trial McCann v Amaral trial in Lisbon.

Yes, it may just seem a question of semantics but it is a very IMPORTANT one.

By
calling it LIBEL or DEFAMATION you’re not only helping the McCanns as
you are, in our opinion VERY SERIOUSLY, harming Mr Amaral’s defence.

Please
call it what it is: a DAMAGES trial. That is what the McCanns are
asking for: financial compensation for DAMAGES caused to the searching
of Madeleine McCann and for the damages caused to the McCann family.

Note, also IMPORTANT, it is not for damages to the INVESTIGATION but to the SEARCHING.

Very simple:

- DAMAGES instead of LIBEL or DEFAMATION.

- SEARCHING instead of INVESTIGATION.

The difference? HUGE”

This
appeal had an enthusiastic and grateful feedback on Facebook, which
we appreciate, and many quickly and intuitively understood its
importance and promised to stop using the “L-word” when referring to the
trial.

But it also met with some scepticism, namely in terms of
whether the difference between being a
defamation or a damages trial was really that important.

If memory serves us right, the
counter-arguments presented against our appeal were that all the
Portuguese press called it “processo de difamação” – defamation process –
so it must be one and that even if was damages instead of defamation it
mattered very little if we, on the internet, called it libel or not as
Facebook – and the rest of the internet for that matter – did not
qualify as a court-room.

Let’s divide this post into separate
parts – defamation v damages, difference between both, implications to
the trial and what can we do.

As a foreword we would like to
clarify that none of us possess any legal background. The opinions
expressed are based solely on common sense, generic understanding of
semantics and logic regarding information we have access to. We can
and should be corrected when appropriate by those with expertise in the
area.

Our only disagreement with the counter-argument made by
some that it is a defamation process because the Portuguese press
consistently reports it as “processo de difamação” is because it doesn’t
include the English press.

We are of the opinion that all mainstream media (MSM) is indeed reporting it as a libel case.

And
why shouldn’t MSM report it as libel? It’s enough to spend a couple of
minutes on the internet and verify that bloggers and posters (on FB
and/or various blogs and forums) are referring to the trial as libel.

If
on the internet it is done that way – where people there are supposed
to really understand the process in minute detail - why wouldn’t
MSM be able to do the exactly same thing?

So one perfectly innocent
explanation for the MSM to be referring to it as libel would be that
they found the term being commonly used (in fact the only one being
used) by “Maddie experts” when doing their researching on the internet.

Where has the idea come from that the current phase is a “libel trial”?

A
number of factors but bloggers and posters have significantly
contributed to that erroneous idea.

We at Textusa are the first to say mea
culpa. Not only have we have used the word libel before as we used the term
when naming a blog about the current phase of the trial: http://mccannvamarallibeltrial.blogspot.pt/

How many of us defied
the McCanns to sue Mr Amaral after he published his book? To sue him to
prove that he was lying and that they were as innocent as they claimed
to be? At Textusa we did.

We demanded repeatedly for the McCanns
to go to court if they thought Mr Amaral was being libellous in his book.
That it was their moral not right but duty, as allegedly wrongly accused, to prove their
innocence. Libel prosecutions exist for that.

We also felt that
Mr Amaral was really eager for that fight, to have in a court of law a
discussion about whether his claims about Maddie being dead and about
the parents’ participation in the concealment of the body were
false or not.

We really wished for that day, didn’t we? The day Mr
Amaral would expose the McCanns publicly. In court, to have his day
there. We really, really ached for that libel trial between Mr Amaral
and the McCanns to happen.

We openly called the McCanns cowards for not suing Mr Amaral.

Then
in May 2009 came the process. It started with the banning phase – then
we didn’t know that it would have the current follow-up phase, so we
just called it the “book trial”.

We immediately noted it did not
accuse Mr Amaral of defamation but, or so we thought, it was intended to
simply put a stop to the selling of his book.

“Alleging that the first
two applicants are the Mother and Father of the other applicants, who
are all underage, being that it is commonly known that little Madeleine
disappeared on the 3rd of May, 2007, and her disappearance prompted an
extensive police investigation.

The defendant, Gonçalo Amaral,
was one of the Judiciary Police (PJ) investigators that was involved in
the investigation and later on wrote a book that is titled “Maddie The
Truth of the Lie”, in which he defends, inter alia that there is a
serious possibility that little Maddie accidentally died in the
apartment where she was staying and that her parents did, in some
manner, undertake the concealment of her cadaver.

They conclude by requesting:

(…)

4.
The prohibition to expressly cite, analyse or comment, verbally or in
writing, any parts of the book or the video that defend the thesis of
death of the third Applicant or of the concealment of her body, by the
first two Applicants;

5. The prohibition to reproduce any comment, opinion or interview in which that thesis is defended or can be inferred;”

It does not refer anywhere defamation.

Later
we would infer that the reasoning behind Team McCann’s claims was that
as the book and the documentary contradicted the spirit of the archiving
dispatch and as such seriously harmed the rights, freedoms and
guarantees of the McCanns, namely the right to a good name.

Remember
how disappointed we were? The McCanns only wanted to stop the sale of the book
and stop the spreading of its content! We thought what cunning cowards
the McCanns were being in avoiding discussing facts, in avoiding discussing in court what really mattered: alleged libel committed by Mr
Amaral.

We were eager for a defamation claim. We wanted a “fact-fight” in court. The mob, us included, claimed libel.

The banning phase of the trial ended with the confirmation of the overturning the ban on the book and this process came.

When
we heard that the McCanns were suing (the follow-up phase) Mr Amaral
for over a million euros it was natural that only one word popped up in
our brains: libel! The so much anticipated libel trial.

Were we happy? We were ecstatic. Finally Mr Amaral was to see justice.

So we didn’t hesitate for a minute calling it “the libel trial”.

Even
Isabel Duarte helped when she spoke outside the court that Mr Amaral
was being sued for infringing the McCanns’ rights, freedoms and
guarantees as citizens and for having defamed them.

As we will
see the term “defamation” was being used as a consequence of a decision
and not as the substantiation of one. A subtle but very important
difference.

We were all so ecstatic that there was
finally going to be a “libel trial” that we didn’t stop for a minute to think we should be so.

If we had done just that we would have realised 2 things.

The
first was that the proceedings we had called the “book trial” should
have been called simply “the banning phase of the trial”. The defendants
were exactly the same so whatever was to be now claimed by the
plaintiffs could only be linked to the decisions made on that first
phase.

The second thing is that if one hires the best and most
expensive lawyers available then the other side should expect the most
brilliant legal games possible. We didn’t. We took things for what they
seemed to be. We didn’t wait a second to do as the Portuguese say
“quando a esmola é demais, o pobre desconfia” – “when the handout is too
great, the poor man suspects”.

We knew the McCanns couldn’t
possibly afford going into a libel trial and yet we allowed ourselves to
believe that had done so right in front of our eyes.

We
momentarily forgot that it was (and is) all about justice and not about
having justice. Being about justice is to play legal games while having
justice is the naïve desire to expect Lady Justice to be just.

For
example we didn’t understand why Team McCann, having as their legal
representative a brilliant lawyer such as Rogério Alves, had Isabel
Duarte show up in court to represent them but we shrugged this off by
thinking that Rogério Alves was reserved for more important processes.

Although it didn’t make sense we didn’t make any effort to understand it.

Was
Team McCann really going into this to lose? If so, why do it at all? If
Rogério Alves was reserved only for the important legal battles what
could be more important, in Portugal, than libel? Nothing.

So why Isabel Duarte?

Let the legal games begin.

In our opinion Isabel Duarte makes her appearance to make it seem that Team McCann didn’t consider it important.

The
first covert move to camouflage the importance of what was really at
stake. We saw Isabel Duarte and said to ourselves that this showed just
how Rogério Alves didn’t consider this banning thing important enough to
engage himself in. He had far more important things such as libel.

And
this manoeuvre stopped us realising that the banning trial was the
closest we will ever get to seeing libel being discussed between Mr
Amaral and the McCanns in court.

If Rogério Alves had appeared in
court it would have fired red flags among us but as it was only Isabel
Duarte we relaxed and sat back and watched.

Isabel Duarte lent her face but the think-tank behind the Team McCann’s legal tactics was further upstream.

To
understand fully the trap they sprung on us let us try to explain what
in our opinion Team McCanns’s legal tactics were.

They
first intended to establish that the contents of book and documentary
were legally false and for that reason should be banned. Once that
determined they then intended to establish damages caused and ask
defendants for heavy financial compensation.

It seems really simple and straightforward, doesn’t it? Only it’s not. Not simple as it seems and much less straightforward.

First
do note that nowhere is Mr Amaral mentioned, on purpose, in our
opinion. We have said defendants and only after the banning determined
and damages established. The targets of the first phase were the book
and the documentary. To ban their contents.

Also please note
that, again on purpose, we have not we referred to the words libel or
defamation in our opinion. We have mentioned the word false but
attached, intentionally, the word legal to it, or better said “legally
false”.

What is the difference between something true/false and
something “legally true/false”? The first is something that has been
PROVED to be true or to be false and the second is something that the
rightful and adequate judicial institutions have been unable to PROVE
that it’s either true or false and as it’s neither it takes the best
form convenient to the presumption of innocence.

To use the Maddie
case as an example, as it was determined that there wasn’t enough
evidence to prosecute anyone without declaring anyone innocent, to say
they were involved in the concealment of Maddie’s body is neither true
nor false. But applying the presumption of innocence principle such a
statement becomes “legally false”.

To state that the McCanns are innocent is simply untrue but to say that Maddie is dead is, currently legally false.

It’s
very important to understand that something legally false may indeed
be false but it can also be true. If it is true, it has yet to be proved
and so until then it cannot be used against anyone.

For our
English speaking readers, it may appear that the word false could be too
strong. False in English everyday usage means a lie, as in giving false
testimony, so the court when banning the book may have regarded
allegations as unproven and not lies.

To state something that has
been proved to be unproved and that causes damages to a third party is
as offensive as a lie and is legally considered as such.

So the
word we intend to use is indeed false. For the book to be banned, as it
was by 1st Instance Court, it had to break some law. The only reason for
that to happen is because it harmed the McCanns’ rights and that could
only be because allegations didn’t respect them. That can only be
because they're not true. They're false. Before the legal system these
allegations are lies. Lies, or falsities, that can be overlooked – as we
will see later – but lies nonetheless.

It goes without saying
our opinion about how truthful we consider the contents in question. But
our opinion matters little. We’re expressing what we think the legal
system looks at the allegations. We are just being the devil’s advocate.

We
remind readers that in Portugal it is the plaintiffs who have to prove
the content is offensive. So, for the 1st Instance Court to have banned
the book and the documentary it can only be that it considered proved
the allegations they contained were false. Or, as we explained above
“legally false”.

We hope readers now clearly understand the
intent of the claim the McCanns made during the banning phase of the
trial: as the archiving dispatch stated clearly there wasn’t enough
evidence to prosecute the McCanns both book and documentary stated
evident legal falsities which harmed the McCanns’ right and for that
reason they should be banned.

What Team McCann set out to do was to prove that Mr Amaral’s book legally lied. That what it said was legally false.

The 1st Instance Court gave reason to the McCanns as we all know.

But
before we deal with the reasons for this decision to have been
overturned let’s first deal with the line of defence always put forward
by Mr Amaral’s supporters (us included): the book only says what the PJ
Files say.

Plus, PJ Files clearly state that Maddie is dead and that the parents were involved in the concealment of the body.

True.
Very true. Even legally true. But, unfortunately, only true on PJ Files
but legally false – for the reasons explained – in Mr Amaral’s book and
in the TVI documentary.

Why?

A question of timing.

The PJ investigation was the window of opportunity to prove or disprove all and any thesis.

Including
the ones in question. PJ clearly states in the interim report (and no
final report changes this) it believed that Maddie was dead and the
parents had a part in the concealment of her body.

But that window of opportunity closed with the archiving dispatch. It’s very important to understand this.

That
dispatch stated that with ALL the facts known up to moment it was written there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute anyone.

We’re
not at this moment questioning the circumstances under which we believe
said dispatch was written up nor providing an opinion on whether we
agree or not with its content. You know our opinion.

But, again,
our opinion matters not for the point we’re trying to make: that
dispatch represents the adequate and rightful legal experts stating that
with ALL the known facts up to that moment there wasn’t enough evidence
to prosecute anyone.

To put it bluntly, legally, whatever PJ says inside
the files that dispatch is dispatching matters not from that moment
on. The dispatch is about the ALL its content and it says clearly and that analysing ALL there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute.

The fact that PJ thought Maddie was dead and that her parents were involved in the concealement of her body became that moment, legally, just one of other unproven theories. A theory to be taken into account, legally, in exactly the same way as the other unproven theory that she was abducted.

To use an analogy.
Inside, the entire process may say that black is black but if the
dispatch says it has been proved that black is blue then, legally, black
is blue. And if the dispatch says that it isn’t proved that black is
black, then black cannot be, legally, black. Ridiculous but that’s the
way it is. And while the dispatch remains valid so all will everything else we said be valid.

And as far as we know, the archiving dispatch remains
valid. The reopening didn’t change anything about decisions made based
on ALL the facts known up to that moment.

So what PJ has said in
the process was absolutely true within the timeframe it was said. But in
terms of content it represents nil. It has been legally superseded by
the archiving dispatch. In fact, due to the dispatch, it is now legally
false.

That’s why the McCanns cannot not sue the Portuguese state
for saying the same thing as Mr Amaral and TVI have said because when
it was said by PJ it didn’t constitute any infringement at the time it
was said.

Back to the banning phase of the trial. What was so
important about establishing that the content of the book and of the
documentary were legally false?

Because Team McCann wanted to concentrate the focus only on the book and the documentary and not on Mr Amaral.

This
would allow the plaintiffs to circumvent the discussion
libel/defamation to be about any facts. Being about the book and the
documentary made it become just a discussion around legal
terminologies and interpretations of law. What mattered wasn’t what they said but
if what they said was or wasn’t false in legal terms only.

From the
archiving dispatch the plaintiffs assumed all material facts as unproved
and so there was no reason to dedicate any discussion about them.

Once
proved that the allegations were legally false then the plaintiffs
could consider them legally libellous irrelevant of content. They would
be able to prove defamation in court without discussing any material
facts. Simply brilliant.

Legal games at its finest because of the
popular misconception about libel – and the populat marrying it with
the word sue – that it always brings along financial punishment. It
doesn’t need to. The punishment can be a banning as was the case.

People
forget that libel seeks only to prove that what another has said about
us is false. To prove only that. Nothing else. Only once libel
proven can any sort of punishment be applied to the one who proffered the false
statements. And the punishment doesn't necessarily have to be financial. It can be a banning, for example.

Now place the word “legal” behind every “false” and
you fully understood Team McCann’s tactics when demanding the book
and the documentary to be banned. By proving that both had legally false
content they proved they were legally false and so were legally
libellous.

As before the law there is no such thing as legally
false but simply false (even with the possibility of being true) that
would mean the plaintiffs would be able to prove defamation without discussing facts.

But
the brilliance didn’t stop there. We were thrown more misleading bait which we swallowed with apparent pride: the number of
defendants.

By not isolating claims against Mr Amaral, Team
McCann ensured that we didn’t shift the focus towards defamation. So
they also brought into court the TVI documentary.

Courts are not
about saving time and money. If Mr Amaral’s book and the TVI documentary
had both separately defamed the McCanns as they did then they should
have been brought to trial separately. Logic dictated it.

If
person A is hurt by person B with a stick and same person A is hurt by
person C with a rock in a totally different time and location then
persons B and C are prosecuted separately by person A. Certainly they will not to be prosecuted together just because they hurt the same
person in the case, person A.

So we were led to think that it was
all about freedom of speech and not about libel. If that was the case,
we thought naively, then the McCanns would have sued Mr Amaral and TVI
separately. But the defendants were put together on the same process,
weren’t they?

Because of it we were certain that it was all only
about free speech because it couldn’t be about defamation as one
happened in 2008 (book) and the other in 2009 (documentary). Each used
different means and they defamed differently – in the documentary Mr
Amaral ventures an hypothesis for Maddie’s death (the falling off couch
while hearing dad thesis) which he abstained from stating in the book.

We
didn’t stop to think and see why the defendants were in the same
process. For the book and documentary to have been brought to
trial together could only have been if they had both committed the exact same
crime.

The crime of breaching the presumption of innocence
IMPLIED by the archiving dispatch. That doesn’t need to have been
committed at the same time and location. It needed only to affront the
same thing: the archiving dispatch.

By joining defendants Team McCann circled like sharks around defamation without ever getting their hands dirty with it.

We
had libel discussed right in front of our eyes and we failed to see it.
What we called “book trial” was indeed much more than that.

If
you remember, during the banning phase panic filled the McCann ranks
when they found themselves seeing facts being discussed in court. Gerry
bolted home and Fiona Payne appeared out of the blue to “support” her
dear friend Kate.

The tactic used to get off this path of doom path
was to distract the court by alleging the PJ investigation was a
blunder. That it was still incomplete and so they claimed that any
discussion of fact was pointless. And the court paid attention to them.

Isabel
Duarte spoke of many leads that weren’t followed without specifying
which. According to defendants more evidence was needed. The
investigation needed to reopen.

And wasn’t that, once again, just music to our ears? It was. We were drawn to it like sailors enchanted by a mermaid’s singing.

They
were able to divert the attention to having Gerry squirming to the
question “Mr McCann will you request the reopening of the process?”

They
threw out the bait and we swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Who didn’t
gloat at the McCann’s evident discomfort that day outside the court? We did, we must
confess.

Instead of telling the McCanns to go back into court and
discuss ALL known facts up to the moment of that dispatch on which they
were basing their accusation we entertained ourselves in exploiting
what was already known: how hypocritical the McCanns were in saying they
were willing to reopen the case when we all knew they had no intention
whatsoever in doing so.

They just wanted to get out of the
predicament they were in at that moment and by stepping into the line of
fire they were able to do just that. They fought to avoid discussion of
fact in court and succeed doing it.

The book got banned. We were shocked. We protested vehemently for free speech. The book got released and we exulted in victory.

We
all, including us, missed what had really happened before our eyes and
much less its real significance: that the fate of defamation had been
sealed with the banning phase of the trial.

No longer can
defamation ever be discussed while the archiving dispatch is valid. The discussion about if it's true or false Maddie is dead or if it's true or false that the parents
participated in the concealment of her body has already happened. For the time the archiving dispatch is valid it can't be discussed again.

The reopening of the process has not nullified the dispatch. The current PJ investigation is now looking for new evidence. Nothing about the content of “old” process has been altered. ALL the facts contained in the “old” process continue not to add up to a prosecution. Investigation is working to change that but until it does all theories put forward by “old” process remain unproven.

Only through a new and superseding dispatch can facts within “old” process have new interpretation and be able to be considered proven. Until then archiving dispatch remains valid about ALL facts of “old” process.

Reopening is not a continuance but a picking up to see what new can be found about the case. It's not a review. All has obviously been reviewed but with the intent to help determine the best lines of investigation to find NEW evidence. If it was a continuance then the McCanns would have been automatically renamed arguidos because they stopped being ones only because of archiving of process and not because they were declared innocent.

The 1st Instance Court decided that the content of both was legally false. That it was offensive to the McCanns.

The
Appeals Court overturned this decision by stating that the book’s legal falsity should be
overlooked as it was outweighed by Mr Amaral’s right to fight for his
good name.

The Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the Appeals Court
decision that it was more important to preserve Mr Amaral’s
right to a good name than to punish the illegality he was committing.

But
the illegality of the book’s content was there. Only the preservation of
higher rights made it possible for the book to go back to the shelves.

The
courts, in our opinion, found that the allegations made by the book –
and TVI documentary – were illegal but that the generalised knowledge of
said case was sufficient for the public to understand the content of
the book were only allegations and not statements of fact. The opinion
of this singular citizen did not in any way alter the presumption of
innocence the couple was entitled to.

Note that TVI did not
appeal to uplift the decision to ban its documentary. Any exhibition of
said documentary is illegal. If it’s illegal it’s because a rightful
court of law found its content illegal. And it can only be illegal
because it’s defamatory.

So, as far as we know, what the 1st Instance Court decided about the documentary is still valid today:

“4.
The prohibition to expressly cite, analyse or comment, verbally or in
writing, any parts of the (…) video that defend the thesis of death of
the third Applicant or of the concealment of her body, by the first two
Applicants.”

The book can be sold but the documentary is banned.
One can be sold and the other cannot be exhibited although both contain
legally false allegations as explained above.

Team McCann
achieved with the TVI documentary all it intended to achieve with the
book: prove it defamatory without discussing whether its content was
true or not but based solely on the fact that it conflicted with the
implied presumption of innocence of the archiving dispatch.

If that isn’t brilliant legal games then we don’t know what is.

And
now we are at the follow-up process. We heard that over a million euros
were at stake in this “suing” and we heard the word “damages” and what did we “respond” with? The L-word. Libel.

But that is, as shown, a ship that sailed a long time ago.

With
the banning decision – remember that the documentary remains banned
today – Team McCann were able to prove that there was a legal truth,
although far from proved as factual truth: Maddie is not dead and the
parents had nothing to do with the concealment of any body.

With
that decision the McCanns were able to now claim that anyone who states,
implies or just suggests that Maddie is dead is committing an
illegality although simultaneously determining that what Mr Amaral said
in his book – because of the circumstances in which he said it – could
be said by him and him alone.

Note that when Mr Amaral says those
things today – that Maddie is dead and that the parents concealed the
body – he is committing libel. The McCanns won’t sue but he is
committing libel. The exact same amount of libel isn’t being sued for
but committed in the CdM interview that Isabel Duarte has brought to
court.

But most important about the decisions of the banning
phase is that they allow the McCanns to take the “moral high ground” and
now claim damages to their reputation. And that is exactly what they’re
doing.

Note that they’re asking for compensation for damages not
because of damages caused by what was said both in the book and
documentary but because of the subsequent effects of what was said. A
subtle difference but one that allowed, as we witnessed, to exclude from
any debate the discussion of fact in court.

“We
are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not.
Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the
defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot
be a substitute of the criminal investigation.”

Whatever is related about content of book or documentary is in the past. Together with the discussion – that never
existed – about them being libellous. To the legal system they are, end of discussion. Now it’s only about damages. Damages to the
McCann family and to the searching of a live Maddie.

Is it
damaging for the McCanns’ reputation that the public perceives that
Maddie is dead and that they had something to do with the disposal of
her body?

Unquestionably, yes.

In our opinion what the
court is currently being asked to determine is how much of this damage
are Mr Amaral and TVI accountable for within the one the couple is
suffering.

Please don’t confuse damage with personal affliction.

From
what we can perceive, the plaintiffs are going for the damages caused
by widely spread “campaign” that has infected the public against them.

Once
the existence of that “widespread campaign” is determined they then intend
to establish the relevance of Mr Amaral as an instigator in it.

That’s
why Isabel Duarte brought into the trial that libellous CdM interview
when CdM wasn’t even a defendant. This interview was on July 22, 2007,
the day after the archiving dispatch.

What Team McCann in our
opinion intends is to show a pattern of behaviour on the part of Amaral
that depicts him as a person relentlessly obsessed with denigrating the
McCanns.

First the CdM interview, then the legally libellous book
and then his active participation in the legally libellous TVI
documentary. A man with a mission of propaganda against the McCanns.

That’s
why the accusation is not concentrating on the direct effects of the
book and documentary on the family but rather on the generalised campaign
against the couple. In this case hearsay is evidence. Hearsay is the
proof there’s indeed the said widespread “campaign” that Mr Amaral has so
diligently instigated.

Team McCann, in our opinion, intended to
show that this widespread “campaign” may not have had Mr Amaral’s hand
at the beginning but he played a relevant part in its dissemination.
That he is a major cause of their distress and he is the major cause for
the general public to think that Maddie is dead.

So what is the importance of saying the “L-word” when referring to the ongoing trial?

There
are many differences between the current phase of the trial to be about
damages as it is and to be about libel which it isn’t.

The first
one is that if it was libel facts would be discussed and they weren’t.
The court wouldn’t hear of it giving us reason to our analysis.

The
second is that it being a damages case and not a libel one there’s a
real possibility that Mr Amaral may lose, at least at 1st Instance Court. If the discussion of fact had been possible we are confident that Mr Amaral would not lose the case. As it’s about damages
there’s the possibility he may lose.

We’re not being pessimistic but simply realistic.

There are 2 reasons for us to think Mr Amaral may lose.

The
first is that Mr Amaral has indeed been a relevant part of that
widespread campaign. Team McCann calls it smearing, we call it the
quest for material truth. Taking into account what is legally
true/false and not what is materially true/false, we think the court
will side with the Black Hats.

The second is the tendency of the 1st Instance Courts in Portugal have to side with the plaintiffs. It’s like
an unwritten rule of having all sides show their game on this first
level (1st Instance Court) and then really playing it on the second
(Appeals Court).

It’s as if the 1st Instance Court level exists only so that
all parties have the opportunity to show their arguments and for the
system to explain exactly what legal framework is applicable. Then all
sides get to go home and, within that legal framework, go back to the
drawing board and refine their tactics for where the fight is really
fought, on the Appeals Court.

A strange system but as we have
explained it was exactly what happened in the banning phase of the
trial. The book and documentary got banned because 1st Instance Court forced
to the extreme the application of the principle of presumption of
innocence and then the decision was overturned by a more realistic
analysis done by the Appeals Court.

The irony is that Team
McCann wants to lose but may be betrayed in its intent by a peculiar
justice system of a very peculiar country. Yes, you read it well, Team
McCann wants to lose the case. We will get back to this.

But the
biggest problem we see there being about this phase of the trial being
damages instead of libel is the fact people are calling it libel.

It starts with the fact that by doing so one is clearly implying that the McCanns are honourable people.

Libel
was created to correct injustices. Unfortunately libel befalls most of
the times – not to say exclusively – where expensive lawyers gather their
earnings. In the hands of those with enough means to pay expensive
lawyers it’s nothing but menacing and threatening. It stops being
protective and it becomes an extremely useful tool of aggression. In the
modern world it’s the ultimate bullying. The principle of if I have
the money to afford the legal expenses I have the means, legal ones, to
shut you up. Using justice to bully justice from being applied. An
obnoxious, disgusting and confusing world but one that we are all very
well aware of as being the reality. Life is what life is so best get
used to it.

But libel is underlined by honour. The right that
one has to defend one’s reputation from wrongful allegation. By calling
it a libel trial when it isn’t, it’s conveying to the public the idea
the McCanns are defending their honour. Conveying the idea that even
though all odds are stacked up against them, they are indeed honourable
people willing to fight for their reputation. That they have no fear in
facing in court the man who has publicly accused them of such horrible
things.

For the general public, hearing consistently from all
over that it’s a libel trial, the McCanns are indeed facing their
nemesis. If they win, they can boast a feat they never even tried and if
they lose the perception is that they tried to fight for their
reputation. This implies they aren’t afraid of the truth which we all
know is not true.

So every time you say it’s a libel trial you
are collaborating in this deception. You are doing an enormous a favour
to people who have no honour, who are cowards about really discussing
libel and who hide behind legal games.

Every time you say it’s a libel trial you are helping the McCanns hide their true colours.

Also
by calling it libel we are helping them divert attention from the true
purpose of the trial. Like we did with the banning phase by calling it
the “book trial”. With the same harmful effect.

It’s about damages so let’s focus on damages. Bring the attention back to what matters: damages.

Let’s
emphasise publicly that Mr Amaral’s fight is our fight but that our
fight is much more than his fight. It’s also his fight but it’s much,
much more than that.

Let’s show that our opinion is not
formulated from his book nor from the documentary but from the “bible”
on the issue: the PJ Files.

The PJ Files are the most quoted documents about the case and not Mr Amaral’s book.

Let’s
remind everyone that before the PJ Files were made public, the general
public already thought that Maddie was dead. The dogs in July 2007 were
the ones that confirmed their suspicion. And when PJ named the McCanns
as arguidos it was only a confirmation and not a revelation.

Robert
Murat had been named arguido in May 2007 but then no one thought he was
really involved as they did about the McCanns when they were named.
Why? Because we knew then that the McCanns had something to do with
Maddie’s physical disappearance and it wasn’t due to an abduction.

They
cannot claim it was their arguido status that made people think they
were guilty. People thought that with the dogs. A year before Mr Amaral
published his book.

Let’s demonstrate that Mr Amaral’s book did
not harm the McCanns in any way. If it harmed anyone, or anything, then
it would have been the Portuguese state. His book showed how ridiculous
the abduction thesis was and how big a favour the country was doing to
the couple by not prosecuting them.

Everyone knew that Maddie was dead and no one needed a book to know the parents were involved in the concealment of the body.

When
they landed in the UK in September 2007 after fleeing Portugal under
the heaviest possible cloud of worldwide suspicion, Mr Amaral didn’t
envisage writing the book. He was working on the case and the whole wide
world knew intuitively the McCanns were guilty of what was then PJ’s
assessment.

Let’s expose that it was the tabloid press that
called the attention of the masses to Mr Amaral’s book with their
demeaning and denigrating campaign against him.

To those who
think that public opinion isn’t decisive in this case, are completely
wrong. The court is analysing exactly what the public is thinking.
What’s the perception of the public about the McCanns and in what way
has Mr Amaral influenced its opinion.

To the court we say that
although we consider Mr Amaral an outstanding role model in the case but
it was not his book that moved us to fight to find the truth about what
happened to Maddie.

It was, and is, the arrogance of the
establishment in calling us all dim-witted when said establishment
allowed the McCanns to fly home when they should have been charged in
Portugal for participating in whatever caused Maddie to disappear. We
don’t consider Mr Amaral as part of said establishment.

In
08FEB2010, with our “Gonçalo Amaral is a Liar” post, we did our best to
drive the spotlight away from Mr Amaral. As we said in then “the intent
of this post is take some of the burden off the back of this man. It’s a
big, big one that he is carrying. We’re all falling into the trap that
the McCanns have laid out for us: making Gonçalo Amaral our Centre of
Gravity (CoG).”

Time, 4 and a half years later, has given us total reason.

Now
is not the time to discuss whether the book says the obvious truth
according to the PJ Files. That is discussing libel and that has already
happened. Forget the book. It’s not relevant at this time.

Now is the time to concentrate on what the judge may consider damages and its reasons.

Now
is the time to concentrate the discussion around highlighting that Mr
Amaral is far from being the only, or even the main reason, why we
public think Maddie is dead and why we think her parents are involved in
concealing her body.

Now is the time that our support for Mr
Amaral is because of the gravest injustice he’s being subjected to. That
we support Mr Amaral because we can see with our own eyes that he is
being ruthlessly persecuted by Team McCann and this 5 year process is blatant evidence of this.

People ask what they can do to help Mr
Amaral. For starters, stop using the word libel. It only distracts
discussion from what is relevant and only helps the McCanns.

Re-centre the discussion on damages and its real origins.

That
way you will be doing your share in showing the judge that public’s
perception of the couple has very little to do with Mr Amaral and was
formed before he published the book.

This way you will be doing your share in helping Mr Amaral’s lawyer prepare his closing arguments.

Getting back to what we said about Team McCann wanting to lose the case.

One
has to understand that Team McCann does not represent the McCanns. Team
McCann represents the interests of those interested in protecting, or
not, the McCanns.

In our opinion the interest in protecting the McCanns has been completely lost since the opening of the review in 2011.

As we have explained, we think the couple was meant to be hung up and dried when the review was opened.

They
weren’t only because Maddie’s body doesn’t exist as of June/July 2007.
Without it there’s no way to demonstrate the couple acted alone and
finding those “available” to say they helped has proven to be quite a
difficult, if not impossible, task.

So, as of May 2011, the couple remains patiently waiting while their fate is being decided upstream.

Did Team McCann gamble when it filed the suit in 2009? No, and it was certain it would win.

Time betrayed them. Or better said, the amazing working rhythm of the Portuguese judicial system betrayed them.

If
the process had been with the usual timings processes done in UK by
winter 2009, or latest by spring 2010, the banning phase would have
been over and the second half of 2010 would have been dedicated to claiming damages.

In 2009/2010 the McCanns were establishment top celebrities.

We
are certain if things had gone according to plan, in that summer of
2010 we would have continuous headlines blaring the idea Mr Amaral was
the one and the only one responsible for the malignant widespread
smearing campaign which afflicted the poor and distressed McCanns.

Mr Amaral, if things had gone according to British planning, would have stood no chance.

But the trial was, as it could only have been, in Portugal. It dragged on and on.

As of summer 2011 the McCanns became a liability for all.

We
think that after an uncomfortable stalemate the British government
finally decided to make a move to find closure for this subject as of
March 2012 when it launched the “6-cleaner episode”.

From then on,
as we have done our best to explain to readers what we think is
happening, a fierce battle has been fought between the British
government and those whose interests will be jeopardised with the
revelation of who helped the couple dispose the body.

But to find
this closure another one was needed to happen first and that was to see
the end of the Lisbon trial between the McCanns and Mr Amaral.

It’s
our opinion that the attempt to reach an agreement with Mr Amaral
wasn’t a McCann initiative but rather one from those who wanted to put a
full stop to the trial. Mr Amaral didn’t accept whatever he was offered
and so the trial had to happen.

We saw various indications that
the idea was to start the “Offensive on the McCanns & Others”
immediately after the sentence of the trial. This sentence was scheduled
to happen for the first days of October 2013. Thus UK Crimewatch on
14OCT13.

The only way to ensure defeat was to bring in the lamest possible group of witnesses.

Ones
who would just go through the motions and say yes, there was damage
to the McCanns reputation but they couldn’t really say it was Mr Amaral
who caused it.

And the McCanns continued in that line of
testimony: the damage wasn’t really that serious and family was only
affected based on a sole hearsay episode in which Sean heard something
on the radio on a school bus. So in school and at home the family is
basically immune to the campaign. And oh, yes, we lost some sleep but
really not that much. Depressed? Well, not exactly. Sure, in the dumps
here and there but depressed, really depressed, can’t say we ever were.

Everyone
now wants the McCanns to lose. Including the Black Hats. The McCanns
have become a big liability and it serves everyone’s purpose that they
stay closed up in Rothley away from everyone’s sight while their fate is
being decided. For them is not a question of if but of when.

Unfortunately
we at the blog think the idiosyncrasies of the Portuguese justice
system may pay all a surprise and force UK’s move on “McCanns &
Others” while the trial is still ongoing in the appeal’s court. It’s no
longer about being popular in catching the McCanns but because it’s the
only way UK has to minimise whatever surprises may come from the PJ
investigation.

We hope we are wrong. About the sentence of the trial being against Mr Amaral. Team McCann has done all it can to avoid that.

Meanwhile, do not call it a libel trial. Call it the “Trial against Mr Amaral”. That’s how the Portuguese really do call it, “o processo dos McCann contra Gonçalo Amaral”. It's true and includes all possible legal games.

Post Scriptum:

We are fully aware that every time the blog says that Maddie is dead or that her parents were involved in the concealment of her body, it is making a legally false statement.

History is filled with examples of people being illegal when doing the right things. Besides the obvious, illegality has always an expiration date.

We would like to warn readers that we may be slow in responding to comments because we are on our holiday break expecting only to return in September.

We hope that some readers may be able to see where a good lawyer can exploit the weaknesses on the McCann's side.

If "Tavares de Almeida made an interim report which accused them" and as the interim report is part of the PJ Files then it is clearly stated in them " that Maddie is dead and that the parents were involved in the concealment of the body" as we say it is.

We wouldn't say rubbished. If it was rubbished then prosecutors dispatch (not a report as all reports are part of files and the archiving dispatch, although attached to it, isn't) would have cleared the McCanns. It doesn't.

We prefer to say, using your own words, it "rubbished" the interim report. It said it wasn't black nor white. It just said there wasn't enough to prosecute.

It wasn't rubbished. Final report says they missed opportunity to prove innocence, or similar wording. Can't remember exact words.The rug was pulled from under the feet of Portuguese by FSS report. And by then, Mcs had fled with no intention of returning for re-enactment.

Not sure I understand why it is (or was) important for the British government to wait until the end of the Lisbon trial to go after the McCanns. Thanks in advance for clarifying this but, most importantly, enjoy your holidays!

Textusa, you're getting strange support from a Nostradamus at Joana's. This is what this poster says:"I am inclined to believe in Textusa earlier theory""I say it is possible. With all the news coming out about pedophilia in Westminster and other high places, Textusa's "frankfurter-bockwurst" scenario is nothing but plausible. "What's he on about?

It seems he/she has only read half of what he calls Textusa's "sausage" theory...he missed the part where/with whom the "sausage" was being used...NOT with Madeleine...so, NOT paedophilia! Unless...maybe Kate McCann is still a child at heart...never really grew up?!

I didn't need GAs book to convince me. After my initial response of sympathy for the parents, having heard John Hill say there was no evidence of a break-in and watched the mcCann's first interview, my opinion changed.K's lack of reaction of any kind was stunning. I know she was alleged to have been advised to show no emotion, but her face said it all.No red eyes, swollen face, agonised expression.. As if she was merely a spokesperson for the parents.She was perfectly turned-out, whereas any parent on the morning after their child had been taken would have shown the signs of extreme strain.I've worked with offenders for many years, and this was enough to press my scepticism button.I then read the PJ files on release and being familiar with reading statements, I was stunned by the incoherence and inconsistencies of the T9.Then we had UK press reports, some of which made ridiculous claims, even questioning M's paternity. (presumably because the police only sought to establish that as a matter of routine)GA's book only confirmed what I had read and seen already. I haven't met anybody in the UK who has read it, apart from my relatives as I passed my downloaded translation to them.

...Kate McCann must have been the only parent EVER to be told NOT to show emotion before the cameras!!! Whenever I have seen such kind of appeals (from parents of missing children) they are always full of emotion, tears, broken voices, heartbreak! The McCanns seem to be always the exception, on this and in everything else!

i want to add my comments to this. No way was it GA book that convinced me. I was spectical about the issue and as anon 12.17 says i found that it was their own demenour and the fact that thete was no progress in finding out what happenedv to the baby which made me suspicious but it was the pj making them suspects that switched on a light in my head. I thought of course thats what happened. I didn,t bother much with the case after that and only regursed my interest after coming accross pat browns blog and then the brillant textusa. I know GA book exists in english but in my opinion english speaking blogs like pat brown and textusa with up to date discussion about the case are more effective in spreading the truth

Your "GA's book only confirmed what I had read and seen already. I haven't met anybody in the UK who has read it, apart from my relatives as I passed my downloaded translation to them" raises not only a very interesting point but a very RELEVANT one.

As we are speaking on strictly legal terms, it is a FACT that legally there is no English version of Mr Amaral’s book.

That has been a matter discussed in court. Various editions in various languages but none in English.

The internet version is not a legal one and as far as we know, is not endorsed by Mr Amaral.

If his book has had any relevance to the idea people may feel convinced that Maddie is dead and her parents concealed her body, then it comes mainly from this illegal version of Mr Amaral’s book.

The internet audience that is interested in this case is vastly English speaking - and with this I’m not minimising the importance of other audiences). And within this audience the UK one constitutes its majority.

Legally Mr Amaral has nothing to do with the success this illegal version of his book had.

The TVI documentary did not air in any other country outside Portugal.

The access to the internet version of the book as well as the visioning of the documentary requires a series of consciously made steps which means that only an insignificant number of people can claim they stumbled on it by accident.

On the internet the version that Maddie is dead and that her parents helped conceal her body has the same likelihood of being accessed as those versions that defend abduction.

It’s a personal choice. And Mr Amaral has nothing to do with my personal choices.

OK. After reading the above, I have only one question. Since the McScums cowardly avoided a libel suit, and instead played their legal games to escape having the facts examined in court, why does Mr. Amaral not sue the McScums for every penny they have and every penny in the fund, given that the McScums are on record numerous times accusing Amaral of lying, of distorting the facts, and of publishing the book solely for profit? Isn't this libel? And if the McScums don't agree it's libel, well they'll just have to prove that in court where ALL the facts would then be examined. Am I not right?

Because unfortunately Mr. Amaral cannot afford the "price of the law"...like what happens with Mr. Bennett in the UK, both have no millionaire fund to sue people left and right, and do not qualify for social services legal assistance. Both in the UK and Portugal, justice is only for those who can afford it...

Please don’t forget that we’re not speaking what is right but about what is legal. Strictly legal.

As we have explained in the post, if the McCanns say he’s lying, we all know they’re absolutely wrong but, unfortunately for the truth, they’re legally correct.

If they say he’s distorting the facts, again, unfortunately, although we know they’re wrong, they’re legally correct. If dispatch says known facts do not allow prosecution then when he says they do, and we all know they do, he’s distorting “legal fact”.

Add to all this that most what is said the McCanns have said, they haven’t. It’s usually a very convenient and anonymous source close to the family that says them.

Lastly, Mr Amaral cannot sue McCanns to force them to discuss fact. One cannot be offended by the other part not being offended by our offenses. The discussion of fact has always to be the initiative of the McCanns.

He has done his share in provoking the discussion and they have avoided as explained in post.

GA causing damages to search?K said recently they needed help from Portugal in the search. So why was Portugal denied rights to screen Crimewatch. The Mcs appeared in the programme and if they had asked for it to be screened in Portugal, who would have refused their request? So who damaged the search by failing to screen CW? Not GA.

Upon reading the news about the most recent trial session, I am certain that the vast majority of journalists doesn’t know what is being discussed in court, and have not informed correctly.

Let us be clear. What is at stake is to find out:

- Whether the writing of my book “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira” was a lawful or unlawful action;

- Whether or not the plaintiffs have suffered damages and whether or not there are facts to prove it;

- Whether or not it is possible to establish a causal nexus between the book and such damages.

This is what is at stake.

Concerning the book’s lawfulness, I suggest to anyone who has doubts to read the Lisbon Appellate Court’s decision within the injunction that preceded the current action. The truth is that for the Appellate Court’s Illustrious Judges, as can be concluded from that decision, the lawfulness of the book’s publication is indisputable.

With proof of the lawfulness of the book, the matter should rest here, without the need to investigate anything further, namely concerning the damages that the plaintiffs complain about.

Nonetheless, we should note that even if the lawfulness may still be at stake, there is still the need to establish a causal nexus between the publication and the damages that the plaintiffs complain about, such as deep depression, social isolation, etc. And, of course, to prove that said damages, no matter where they originate from, really exist.

Concerning the social part, it seems obvious to me, if we pay attention to the countless social events that the plaintiffs have participated in, including speeches at the British Parliament, interviews on television shows like Oprah Winfrey’s, gala dinners with illustrious personalities, namely British, among others, that said social isolation is totally false.

Concerning the depressions, although they are in no way proved within the case, in my opinion, in fact it would be very strange if they didn’t exist. The disappearance of a daughter, whether she is dead or alive, whether or not she was abducted, has to originate enormous consequences of that kind. How strange would it be if that wasn’t the case! But about this issue I won’t say anything further, given that the plaintiffs seem to attribute to me and my book all of their pain, as if said disappearance, followed by their arguido status and other circumstances that surround the case, were of no importance, or weren’t more than enough!

Unfortunately, due to clearly dilatory manoeuvres from the plaintiffs, that have once more forced a postponement of the hearing, I am afraid that the trial will drag on – as they clearly wish -, and we won’t have a sentence soon, as I wish would happen, and as I long for. Furthermore, the judicial holidays have already started and, as the Illustrious Judge explained, with the new judiciary organisation coming into force on the 1st of September, the process’ slowness will be considerably increased.

However, my trust in Portuguese justice remains steadfast.

All that is left for me is to recognise and thank you for all the support that I have received, from all those that believe in justice and in truth, without which it would have been impossible for me to fight this lawsuit. Or to lead me to ponder, as I do, to file a lawsuit against the McCann couple and others, in order to be compensated for the enormous damages that they have caused me already, on all levels, such as moral, professional and financial.

The time to judicially react to all those who have put my privacy, my intimacy, my freedom of expression and opinion, and my survival conditions at stake is approaching.

They have tried to assassinate me civilly, but due to the support and solidarity of all of you, they were not successful.

Nostradamus has replied in Joana's blog:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/07/phone-calls-and-hairs-frame-suspects.html#comment-form

"19/07/2014 09:41Textusa...

Hi Textusa! What a pleasant surprise! It is an honour (and a challenge) to explain things to such a distinguished thinker - particularly since, you do it so much better.

"At some point, she started to jump up and down on the couch, shouting with the control and conviction that a child that age throws a tantrum or defies an adult.

David Payne must have slapped her hard enough to throw her off the couch and have her bang her head against the wall, dying instantly, or shortly thereafter."

Full details at: http://textusatheory.blogspot.co.uk/

At the time I had at the time difficulty in imagining Payne inflicting pain to Maddie right in front of the mother but... when dealing with the British "nouveau riche" everything is possible.

I was more inclined to think Gerry had done it afterwards e.g. when little Maddie went on about it and refused to forget Payne's sausage and Mommy's odd behaviour vis a vis the popular item of Greys' Anatomy but of course this was an earlier theory. Full kudos to you, anyway.

In my humble opinion, the point to remember was Gerry is the one with the butch looks even if bespectacled David may look the more deranged of the two but of course this is all mere speculation. May God bless them both for their table manners at the Mallorca's mansion! AaaaMEN!

Now concerning my other statement about "paedophilia in Westminster and other high places". I made no allegations, the "Daily Telegraph" did. Please read on:

Stop playing with words. This case is filled with the specious use of them. Just like you do.

You said “With all the news coming out about pedophilia in Westminster and other high places, Textusa's "frankfurter-bockwurst" scenario is nothing but plausible.”

I’m supposing that the "frankfurter-bockwurst-scenario” refers to my hypothesis of Maddie having interrupted a sex act being performed by her mother and then with all the innocence of her age voicing out in her own words what she must have understood to be just a playful act between adults.

Nowhere in the theory is it said or implied in any way any act of paedophilia. In your response you confirm that. The alleged act described was exclusively between adults.

The article you refer to shows “more than 10 current and former politicians are on a list of alleged child abusers held by police investigating claims of a Westminster paedophile ring.

MPs or peers from all three main political parties are on the list, which includes former ministers and household names.”

Your initial comment links clearly my "frankfurter-bockwurst-scenario”, an act between adults to “paedophilia in Westminster and other high places”

We fail see any and whatsoever linkage (besides the intentional misleading on your part) that you try to make between high ranking paedophilia and a stand-alone outburst of violence without thinking and which is what we think caused Maddie’s death.

What happened is nothing to do with class. The only thing to do with class is the refusal of some people to contemplate professional people could be involved in such a cover-up.

If in on my initial theory I did say that I believed that it was DP the one who had that a stand-alone outburst of violence without thinking, further analysis have made me, or our team, to not rule out K as a possibility.

It’s our firm belief that it was one of the 2, DP or K, who had that a stand-alone outburst of violence without thinking and only a confession, which we foresee as very unlikely, will solve this uncertainty.

Lastly, do take into account that although the existence of intimacy does allow an easier flux of humour between parties the forcing of intimacy via patronising humour is always very counter-productive to the forcing party.

"Stop playing with words. This case is filled with the specious use of them. Just like you do."

If that is what "the investigator" thinks...

My dear! You sound too tense! I must admit I was bemused by your ex-cathedra comments on my persona but hey! That's what freedom of expression is all about! Well done!

David Payne happens to be associated with certain comments (Gaspars') which suggest a certain mind-set (paedophilia). This is where my associative process took over and left yours lagging behind - I am sorry about that!

"Textusa Theory" is so hilarious and memorable exactly because of the stratospheric flight of imagination you made. Unfortunately this is an area where you do not retain the exclusive (far from it) but I will see what I can do.

In the last analysis, it is Joana's prerogative to publish or not to publish my comments which is one reason I do not comment on your blog - the level of allegiance and censorship there reminds me of Portugal before April 1974.

So my dear, you go on with your brilliant analytical games and I stick to my counter-reputation management strategies - if you don't mind.

Textusa, am I right in concluding from Gonçalo Amaral's message yesterday on Facebook that he is very confident in winning the case, although he seems desperate about how slow the trial is?

Maybe it's me misreading his words and being overoptimistic but, from a naive perspective like mine (as I am no legal expert at all), it would indeed seem that the Lisbon Appeals Court decision back in October 2010 practically rules out the question of damages as it clearly states that "The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants’ fundamental rights" (source: http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/10/lisbon-appeals-court-ruling.html). This seems to settle the question, doesn't it? Or is it that the Appeals Court ruling can still be overturned?

Is it unrealistic to assume that the McCann team have known since October 2010 that they cannot possibly win this case, and have just been playing tactics ever since to avoid the public humiliation of withdrawing the injunction? And to keep sticking in people's minds that the McCanns are being persecuted by the "disgraced policeman" whenever the case reappears in the media?

Anyway, my best wishes to Gonçalo Amaral. I just hope that he will be remembered worldwide as the admirable man he is. Best wishes to this blog too - definitely the most intelligent and enlightening source about the Maddie case.

1. Has GA reasons to be confident as he seems to be in his FB message?

2. Hasn’t the Appeals Court clearly cleared Mr Amaral’s book of any possible damage charges as it decided it didn’t offend the rights of the McCanns and the Supreme Justice Court ratified this decision?

The first question is relatively easy to answer. Yes, he has every reason to feel confident in victory. The biggest reasons are that he has truth and reason on his side.

Our pessimism lies only in that Jiminy Cricket’s voice on our shoulder warning us to be wary of the idiosyncrasies of a system that in our opinion only guarantees it can’t be relied upon.

Add to this something we didn’t mention in the post and that is the peculiar characteristic of the Portuguese to strive to show they are smarter than any other Portuguese. Not more intelligent but smarter. The Portuguese will always find a way to show how differentiated their capability of thought is from their peers. Note, we’re not implying invention but the wanting to show the ability to see what others have failed to see but is indeed there depending on the perspective and angle of sight.

In decreasing order of logic, to every problem there’s a logical solution, an illogical one, one that wouldn’t even occur to the devil himself and then there’s the Portuguese one. We’re simply afraid that we’re going to get “Portuguese” answers to the questions put to the court that appear have simple and logic answers to them.

We obviously wish that what we hear is not Jiminy – who is always right – but static from those tin-foiled hats of ours and whenever there’s that sentence from the 1st Instance Court, it will be in favour of Mr Amaral.

One should always hope for the best (win), expect the expected (win) and never be unprepared for the worst (lose).

The second question is much more complex. When we read those words we thought the same as you did. However, the claim made by Team McCann MUST have a legal sustainability, however remote, to support it. If that was not the case, then the claim would have been outright rejected, or in the least deemed invalid by the court. If that had been the case there wouldn’t have been any court sessions and, as we know, they did take place.

Note, the Appeals Court accepts that facts within files are unproven. The novelty is that it also says that they CAN have (not are to have) a different INTERPRETATION which the court thinks legitimate:

“We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants’ constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry’s Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that WERE DEEMED TO BE INSUFFICIENT IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, but they CAN BE APPRECIATED IN A DIFFERENT WAY, IN AN INTERPRETATION THAT IS LEGITIMATE TO BE PUBLISHED as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants’ rights.”

Because of this, the court finds that “the contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants’ fundamental rights” having before noted that the book “has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour”.

The Appeals Court is clearly on “fighting-between-rights” grounds. It considered, in our opinion, that taking into account that if the book remained banned in Portugal there were still many other versions, commercial and internet, so that particular object, so to speak, couldn’t by itself be held accountable for offending the rights of the plaintiffs.

Note that as far as we can see the decision to revoke the injunction is only applicable to the book. Throughout the text of the decision one can read that the documentary is referred to in a differentiated manner but in the decision it is not mentioned at all.

We assume that the documentary is included in “the other appeals are not taken into consideration, as it is understood that their appreciation is prejudiced – article 660, number 2, of the Civil Process Code” reason why in the post we have explicitly said the contents of documentary remain banned.

Logic would say if Appeals Court considered without any reservations contents of book absolutely and totally offense-free, such considerations should be extended to the documentary.

The documentary differs, in our opinion, from the book in terms of the latter being a personalised and individual project in quest for reposition of honour and the first can be seen as a mere profit seeking product from a commercial entity, TVI.

But the words proffered by the Appeals Court are relative to the banning – or defamation – stage of the trial.

Now, as said, we are at damages (finally we see people have come to realise the importance of the difference).

Qualify and quantify them and allocate responsibility for them.

First determine if there are damages to the defendants.

Second, if there are damages to the defendants, specify which and in what manner they affected the couple and attribute a value of compensation.

Third, once determined the above, determine in which way each of the 4 defendants are in what way responsible for the proved damages.

Fourth and last, sentence each defendant with the appropriate compensation penalty.

If there aren’t any damages the process stops at the first stage. If there are damages but there can’t be done an allocation of responsibility to any of the defendants (for example court finding that there are damages but these originate from others than the defendants) then the process stops at the second stage.

That is what is in question at the moment.

Remember one does not have to utter a falsity to cause damages. The truth can damage as well. Take the example of a thief who has done all the time in jail society has sentenced him for his crimes. After having paid his debt to society, insisting on calling him a thief – a proven truth – may indeed cause damages for which he can claim compensations for.

We consider a victory only if none of the 4 defendants are found guilty. That encompasses not only Mr Amaral and his book but also TVI and the documentary.

Mr Amaral’s fight, we repeat is NOT the only fight that is relevant. His fight is part of much greater one which we are all part of.

Textusa you are brilliant the amount of work you and your team do to uncover the truth is fantastic - we read your new articles here we never miss. You say it how it is. Now the Mccanns have admitted that they have people that check the internet they must live in fear of your articles unravelling their lies and seeking the truth. Thanks x

“One evening in Praia da Luz in early May 2007, a lovely childless couple happened to stroll down the street past an apartment block. The only audible sounds were emanating from a nearby Tapas bar as a group of adults laughed, joked and appeared to be answering quiz question in loud, alcohol-fuelled voices.

Suddenly, the lady with the barren womb, grabbed her husband’s arm. 'Hey, do you hear that?''Yes, I can hear some loud-mouth Scotsman shouting for football questions,' he answered.'No, not that. I can hear a child crying.'They stood silently for a few seconds. Then the woman's concerns were realized as what sounded like a young child cried and sobbed.'Oh, honey. She's in there,' she said, pointing to a darkened end apartment.

The husband shrugged. 'Her parents are probably in bed and will go to her soon enough.' They stood listening for at least another five minutes. The child's crying was showing no signs of abating.The woman, by now close to tears said, 'I think the child is in their all alone.''Don't be daft, her husband said, 'who'd leave a baby all alone at night?' As he spoke, he faced the Tapas bar area and wondered whether he should go over and ask the loud people if it happened to be their apartment ... 'Hey, what you doing?' he shouted to his wife who had climbed the stairs leading to the patio door of the apartment and was peering into the dark apartment.

By the time the husband had joined her she had slid the door open. 'I don't believe it. It's unlocked,' she said, he voice breaking.Now the door was open, the child's crying sounded twice as loud. The woman grasped her husband's hand and pulled him through into the apartment and slid the door closed behind her.

Deciding against switching a light on, they made their way to the room containing the crying child. The quick-thinking man filled a glass with water and dampened a tea towel then followed his wife into the bedroom.

To say they were shocked and appalled at the sight of THREE children in the bedroom would be an understatement.

'Oh dear. Come on, little girl,' the woman said in a soothing voice. 'Where's your mummy.''Probably out on the piss,' her husband said under his breath.

The woman picked the child up and cuddled her, using the damp tea towel to dry her eyes and mop her brow. The little girl gulped the glass of water.The woman asked her where her parents were.In her child-like way, she told them that they were supposed to be checking on them every half-hour but they hadn't been in for at least two hours.

'Oh dear. That's awful,' the woman lamented. 'If you were my little girl, I'd NEVER leave you.'The girl sniffed and put her head on the lady's shoulder.'Hey honey. These other two haven't stirred once since we've been here. It's as if they've been drugged or something.'

By now, the child had fallen back to sleep and the soothing woman gently placed her back in bed and covered her up.They crept back out of the apartment and hung around just outside the Tapas bar entrance for at least ten minutes in the hope of seeing someone, maybe the child's parents coming back to check on them ... nobody came.

Two days later, the soothing couple, having mused over the situation every waking hour came to a joint decision. They decided to walk past the apartment again, and if they heard the child crying, they were going to enter the apartment and whisk her away to a better life where she would be loved and cherished, and would never be left on her own again ...

... and you know what, class? That's exactly what happened. They nipped in the apartment, picked her up, and took her home to their huge mansion in Switzerland where they lived ... happily ... ever .... after.

We would also like to take this opportunity to also say we don't agree she was taken off in a tennis bag. We think she left the apartment in the arms of her father just as described by Jane Tanner with the following two exceptions:

- first, is that according to her “official version” she says she sees Bundleman cross the top of street while we say she saw Gerry leaving, in the exact same direction, via back gate;

- second, in her “official version” she says she’s walking up the road when she sees Bundleman while we say she sees Gerry carrying Maddie from inside apartment 5A.

Then the missing blue bag must have had been used to take away any compromising materials, like cleaning products, cloths, etc. It disappeared (and laterits existence even denied by Clarence Mitchell, if I recall correctly) for some reason...

The blue bag we’re referring to is the one that was photographed by PJ on the night of the crime and then disappeared that same night in another photograph.

Present in one photograph and missing in another, like the beige fabric, which we suppose are trousers, that was lying on the parent’s bed.

That night Gerry’s showed twice an exaggerated show of emotion by kneeling down into a muslim-prayer like position sobbing – completely out of character as later – which could only have been, in our opinion, to call for attention in a distractive manoeuvre to allow someone else to sneak out the apartment what was there and shouldn’t have been: the tennis bag and the beige pants.

Why wasn’t the bag supposed to be in apartment? Because, in our opinion, it contained material soiled with Maddie’s blood.

As we don’t think anything was destroyed that evening, we are sure the bag was kept for future use, if needed. Unlike the body, it does exists so can always be conveniently be dug up and found to everyone’s “surprise” with its overwhelming evidence against the T9.

I don't understand. If the bag was taken by one of T9 why/how would it be used later as overwhelming convenient evidence against T9? If it's been buried by that lot, couldn't it be used as covenient evidence of abductor/murderer?

The bag, in our opinion, was indeed taken out of the apartment by one of the T9. It wasn't buried by anyone. It most likely, not to say for sure, joined the body that night.

After that it was most likely wooshed to UK and where it is currently stored, in our opinion.

The digging scenario we have put forward would be theatrics. It would be brought over from UK, buried somewhere near the apartment and then be "accidentally" found (because someone would have denounced or confessed).

As we think it contains clothes belonging to the T9 as well as rags used to clean the blood, it can only incriminate the T9.

T9 have abductor with some sort of superpower and SY burglar with nonsensical human behaviour but neither have ventured to the possibility of abductor/burglar cleaning up apartment.

Thank you, but sorry still don't get it. If someone confesses, why the need for theatrics? Surely the game's up on confesssion. Also why would T9 store such incriminating evidence? Surely it would have been destryoed asap.

Hi Textusa - thanks for giving your thoughts regarding the blue bag. So from what you say, if I understand correctly, the bag is now probably in the hands of the establishment, to be used when and if required..Thanks again

Let's see if i've got this right.Tapas 9 take bag. Bag taken back to Blighty.Establishment apprehend bag.Bag kept by establishment.Establishment await right moment to take back to Portugal to bury and 'dicover'.Bag and contents used as evidence to nail T9.Eh?Why not use the evidence right now?

I haven’t come to any conclusions about the blue tennis bag. The dogs alerted to the wardrobe where the blue bag was shown in a photo so can we assume the dogs didn’t alert to the bag or it would have been taken for DNA testing by PJ?DP says something very strange in his statement about G’s bag not being big enough to HIDE a tennis racket in so he obviously had the bag in mind for holding a body but didn’t manage to stop himself starting the sentence. Even if it had been used before cadarverine developed the blood dog would have picked up the smell of blood?Do we know for certain the PJ didn’t take it after it was photographed?

Dog alerted for cadaverine in area of closet nearest to wall. Bag was photographed in closet nearest to door.

We believe that blood dog did not pick up any scent in parents’ bedroom, only cadaverine one.

Also, we find difficult for closet to be contaminated if body was inside tennis bag. Just an amateur guess that there would be too many layers of different types of fabric between body and wood. And if cadaverine had seeped through so would have blood.

We believe that body was laid down in closet, already cleaned and ready for transportation. To be transported, as we think it was, like Tanner describes Bundleman.

All objects collected for forensic evidence are listed in the files. It includes the garage couches which we don’t know to who they belonged to – recently taken to have belonged to Sergey Malinka but that as far as we know may be true but is nonetheless speculation.

No ref to sports bag or beige trousers. As far as we could see, only cloth taken for analysis from apartment is from living room curtains (stain 16).

Also a tennis racquet officially has the max length of 29”. The average length of one used by an adult is of 26”. A 4yr old child is on average 38-41”. The difference is of 11-15”. To bend the legs to fit presents a volumetric problem for which the bag is not prepared for.

If the body was carried in that blue bag that would mean authorities had been called with body inside apartment. And that it was still there on arrival of PJ. Remember that first on scene was GNR and only then PJ.

I'm assuming you are saying that the police have confiscated the bag from T9 and 'kept for future use'.

If such a thing happened he police would not wait a second the evidence , together with ather evidence such as the dogs, and McCann's denial of athe existence of a blue bag, would be air-tight, I'd have thought. T9 would be toast.There'd be no need for 'theatrics'. If you mean something else then wer're obviously not on the same wave length.

Textusa - I see the JH forum is discussing an upcoming release of Anthony Summers book on the case. What are your views on it. Surely books like the trash books wrote by collins and the like had a sell by date when the McCanns and were running high in the popularity stakes. Is this a final attenpt by the BHs to save the day or do you expect a more objective overview of the facts

Any truthful account of the events of May 3rd 2007 are welcomed by us. Be it from Anthony Summers or from anybody else.

Truth, as it is indeed true, resists all analysis, withstands all questions and most importantly provides all answers.

If ever we are to find ourselves in a situation where truth denies what we have deemed to have been what really happened that night – accidental death not related to but within a context of a swinging event – it will because it will have shown us where we were wrong. Clearly and objectively.

If and when that day happens, due to both the intellectual and moral honesty we struggle never to betray and the respect we have for our readers, we will explain, clearly and objectively, where we were wrong and why we were wrong.

Truth never offends. Truth never defeats those truly seeking it without secret interests or hidden agendas.

Not talking about the forthcoming Summers’ version but about any version. Including his if it reveals to be truthful.

However the phrase, taken from Amazon, about his book “speculation that the McCanns played a role in their daughter's fate, the authors demonstrate, is unfounded” just about says it all.

Apparently Mr Summers appears to have some credentials. So has JK Rawlings who has openly supported the McCanns and until public retraction and apologies will forever have her name linked to them. Like many other “serious” celebrities/personalities.

Credentials or not, we believe it won’t take more than 5 minutes to be taken apart.

We think it’s rather dim-witted to side with the McCanns at the moment but who is to stop someone from being utterly stupid?

To answer your question directly, we think this is another character wanting to make a buck out of Maddie thinking the case will forever be a never ending story and hasn’t understood what currently is exactly at stake nor of what is really going on.

Even if it is a move by the BH to counter-attack what seems to be an unstoppable offensive against the McCanns, it’s a rather weak card to play at the stage the game is at, so equally stupid if that is the case.

We think of greater relevance and of more literately importance than Anthony Summers’ book the insult-free articles published by the Sun and Daily Mail regarding Mr Amaral going to sue the McCanns.

These 2 very important articles show how the establishment, with the help of the media, is showing the BH very clearly that the tide has indeed changed and the dam will not hold much longer, so better let go of the McCann sooner than later as consequences with passing of time will only aggravate, instead of diminishing as they have expected up to now.

Mr Amaral has shown resilience and determination. He has demonstrated he will keep fighting even if he wins the courts decision this fall (or winter?).

Also, Portugal, as the June fiasco has shown painfully clear, is no longer controllable. Whatever happens there, happens there.

What is now a huge embarrassment will soon become an unsustainable and unjustifiable one.

It is now time to choose those who will have to step forward and face public fury together with the McCanns.

From the silence we have witnessed from DP-gang, suggests this lot has resigned to their fate. They, like the rest of the T9 and the PdL ex-Pat clique will have to wait to know what their fate is to be. All of them are small fish in this pond. The decision centre is way upstream.

Summers says he obtained info from bloggers claiming he was a journalist. Asked disingenuous questions, when the book seems to have already been written. Obtained views of McCann's or their family, so must have assured them it would contain nothing negative about them before it was completed.M is a lucrative source of revenue it seems.I exclude GA from that, as he has been financially ruined and his book was written to defend his reputation.Summers does not seem to let facts get in the way of a good story, according to Tom Mangold. But are the public still interested in the search, after the SY fiasco? Only a book which claimed to solve the mystery would be a best seller.

To all those who demonised this man, we recommend a minute of reflection.

To all those in the media who helped society demonise this man, who exploited (and continue to exploit) the sufferance of the families of the victims with empty hopes, who vehemently condemned an activity (praxis) – however stupid it may be – practiced by and between consenting adults, we won’t recommend anything. We know you will do it again. And again. And again.

When watching the re-enactment made by TVI (based on what, as we’re sure the lone survivor didn’t speak to the) and watching those volunteers lined up by the sea we remember thinking what if, by a huge fluke, a wave surprised all and engulfed them all to death, would TVI be accused of silly, dangerous, cruel and unthinkable praxis?

Do you think they know the games up and this is a last ditch attempt , in fact an open threat, to expose others? Are they hoping Murdoch will pay as it may be an easier option than going to court? Like you, I was very positive last night, but corruption in this establishment is such that I'm not at all confident today.

Please do not confuse relevance with optimism. Not that we’re not, we are. But we are also very aware that this is a game and for some reason it’s in its fourth year.

Look at it this way. If this is true, it’s like looking at the chess column on the Sunday paper.

Week after week we have been reading only things like “White is two pieces up, his queen is hanging while Black also threatens to capture on h1 and to give discovered check with the knight on f2. Which move keeps White’s advantage?”

Also, Murdoch has money to burn, unlike poor Dr Amaral. All he has is his honour, dignity and our total respect. I sincerely hope he will finally be successful against this pair of utterly dispicable people.

We think we need to clarify about the term "sub-child" as some twitters are using it to describe child carried by Smithman.

We ask those who subscribe our theories to use term "decoy-child" when referring to Jane Tanner's child being carried by Gerry to distinguish it from ridiculous story of a substitute child used to cover murder of Maddie.

I don't understand your comment/attitude. You debunked neglect, rightly so. Hall doesn't mention it because it is irrelevant. I think these four programmes are excellent. They set out the facts. Yes, there are some inconsistencies (BRT) omitted, but there are so many included I think it is a real step forward. We have been immersed in this for seven years. Hall's programmes are a real wake up call for people who haven't. I also have always believed that what is being covered up is a lot more significant than a member of the establishment involved in a swinging scenario. I was persuaded by these programmes that Payne's visit may not have taken place at all. Think about it Text.

The visit, or rather the account of the visit, given by Payne, G and K McCann is full of the usual inconsistencies as we all know. However, the most important reason for stating that it did take place is simply to persuade that Madeleine was still alive at this time. I am saying that. Richard Hall didn't. I was persuaded listening to Payne's hesitant account of it being read. Together with the photoshopped "last picture" and the cleaning of 5a, I am persuaded that death came earlier than that evening. The programme didn't convince me of that, it just fell into place in my mind watching it. Also, as I have said before, I believe the key to all this lies in Madeleine's medical records. I hope you have found time to watch all four programmes by now. Teddy Shephard has now posted them all on his Only in America blog, so it's easy for everyone to access them there. I watched them on blip tv where there was no buffering problem, as there sometimes is on You Tube. The most important thing about these programmes is that they set out the facts clearly so anyone still of the mind to give the McCanns the benefit of the doubt can see how mistaken they were.

The fact that one lies about how one has stolen a cookie doesn’t mean one hasn’t stolen one. Inconsistencies do not invalidate events.

Not seeing how one can extrapolate from Hall’s videos why the visit didn’t exist. It’s enough to read that one says it lasted 30 seconds and the other 30 minutes to see an immediate inconsistency. It only means both aren’t telling the truth about how things happened and not that they didn’t happen.

However discrepancies do help to find truth once one understands the reasons for them to have been made.

You seem to subscribe death before the 3rd. We would like to know if you believe that Philip Edmonds lied when he said he saw Maddie in the afternoon of the 3rd? And the crèche workers?

About the cleaning. We believe a general cleaning was done between TOD (18.15-18.30, May 3) up until somewhere around 20.30. This was done by the T9. Nothing too fancy. Like cleaning spilt milk before visits arrive and not notice there was ever milk on the floor. Afterwards, the “6-cleaner” team came and cleansed apartment free of DNA. Or almost.

We debunked neglect, but it's irrelevant? Hmm. Take away the mythical neglect and checking routine and what do you have left? Think about it.

The “last picture”, which we agree was photoshoped, in our opinion has only the intent of showing a family time that didn’t exist. Maddie spent her time on that holiday “stored” away at crèche. It has little importance to the case but we’re finding very interesting the interest it has generated. Will return to it one of these days.

As for Hall, the thorough investigator, can anyone tell us what he’s trying to show at exactly 36:45 of video 1?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4o24jRjOy4

We did note the very, very specious use of Clarence Mtichell’s quote “My job was to… control what comes out of the media”. Does Media Control Centre have daily meetings at, say 03.00 am, with all papers so they are able to get the green light from government before hitting the presses?

MCC does an errand for the Prime-Minister. It filters for him what are the most important news of the day. A necessary errand but nonetheless just an errand. To attribute any sort of power to someone who ran daily the risk getting his ears clipped for missing something the Prime-Minister would find important, is ridiculous.

We have watched the videos but are not prepared to promote Hall, as his views on other subjects remind us of Icke, who we also declined to promote.http://gettingreadyfor2015.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/the-rich-planet-show-is-back-on-tv/

If anyone asks what we mean about not promoting Hall after giving a link, we wanted to show what he believes about other issues is not something we want to promote. If readers believe the same things as he does, there are other blogs where they can comment.

The videos are now promoted by other blogs and people can make their own judgements about them. As far as we can see, they assemble known information without any new facts.

In that respect, the McCanns won't be happy that a condensed and simplified version of what is alleged to have happened is now easy to access.

Of course inconsistencies do not invalidate events. As I have already stated, I did not "extrapolate" from these videos that Payne's visit did not exist. And as I also already said, I believe the reason for this lie was to establish that Madeleine was seen alive at that time. I agree with you about Hall's other interests, which, as will be the case with most people, I was unaware of until after I watched these yesterday. You have, however, now highlighted this. This does not detract from the importance of these videos in giving many people a clearer picture of this case. Not everyone knows enough about this case. If I have got the correct point in film 1 that you refer to, Hall is again highlighting inconsistences - was it warm or was it cold, was she in bed under the covers or lying on top of them? Whether or not Payne visited may be irrelevant just as whether or not the tapas group were involved in swinging activities. I believe only the McCanns - one or both of them - were present when or shortly after Madeleine died. I have thought that since the early interview Gerry gave where he said that nothing was as bad as when they found her .....then quickly corrects it to add missing (or gone).As for Mitchell's reference to "control what comes out of the media", surely everyone in the UK is now aware that the msm has always been used to influence and control the public's opinions? I'm unsure what you are trying to say in the penultimate paragraph so can't comment on that. As I have said, I think the key lies in the medical records that noone has access to.Anyway, let's hope for more news soon about the McCanns' proposed action against the Times, and also for a good outcome for Goncalo Amaral in September. Whether or not the McCanns are ever brought to court, at least for fraud, what they have done condemns them for the rest of their lives.

I took from video 2 that DP spent so much time fixating on the children and the kids that it was almost like he was trying to convince that not only where the kids there but they were content and happy. Like there is no way that kate would have harmed them because they were such beautiful well behaved children. So i think not that the visit didnt happen but that he has it so etched in his memory that something happened to the child in his presence that he has to over compensate in his assertion that this was a happy loving environment. Me thinks you protest too much. Agree that videos bring a lot of information together in a cohestive way .

Listening to the words being spoken on video 2 from the interview by DP with regards his visit was astonishing from an intelligent man. I know that being a doctor his academic ability is unquestionable but really it was like listening to my 6 year old grandson explaining in a long rambling story that a broken plate flew out of the cupboard on its own. I’m just at a loss to explain it. I mean I’m certain he would know that any police officer worth his salt would have seen straight through what he was trying to convey, if he had prepared what he was going to say. Do you think Textusa that he was so traumatised by the memory of what happened that he has been reduced to a bumbling eejit just talking about it?If the purpose of DP and KM interviews was to convince everyone that the child was alive at that time I do not feel that the KM story that he stuck his head around the door for 30 seconds would have fulfilled that purpose, DP in that scenario would not have possibly provided enough certainty that she was there. I have always thought that they were all caught up in trying to cover every scenario that they bungled a lot of what was said. I think that the McCanns at least would have avoided saying the visit happened at all but perhaps they knew somebody had seen them. Maybe somebody like the Smiths who they thought would come forward but didn’t

Dr Payne does not seem to be a man who traumatises easily but I may be wrong. He didn't seem traumatised to anyone in the days following when shock would have been expected.

One has to love him not remembering whether he to the visit before or after going all the way to his apartment and change for tennis while remembering distinctly how everyone was dressed and how happy they were.

It happens to me all the time. I can never remember if I have breakfast before or after I wake up.

As they say, the weight of a conscience is so heavy that sometimes it squashes all reason out of a person.

AnonSorry I was a bit unfair to Hall about losing energy to watch his other videos, but I was expecting some revelations. It's useful to have some known facts assembled about inconsistencies. I will look at the other videos but I haven't seen any reports that note new revelations, but have read there are a few errors.

Singer says allegation, which dates back to 1980s and involves boy aged under 16, is 'completely false'

Vikram Dodd theguardian.com, Thursday 14 August 2014 13.22 BST

Detectives investigating a claim of a "sexual nature" have searched a property belonging to Sir Cliff Richard.

The home in Sunningdale in Berkshire was searched after police gained a warrant.

The allegation dates back to the 1980s and involves a boy who was aged under 16 at the time. Richard said the claim was "completely false".

The claim is that the alleged abuse took place on the child in the South Yorkshire area in the 1980s, a police spokesperson said. Because of where the alleged incident took place, the investigation is being carried out by South Yorkshire police.

In a statement South Yorkshire police said: "South Yorkshire police has gained entry to a property in the Sunningdale area of Berkshire. Officers are currently searching the property.

"A search warrant was granted after police received an allegation of a sexual nature dating back to the 1980s involving a boy who was under the age of 16 at the time.

"No one has been arrested and the owner of the property was not present."

Richard said in a statement: "For many months I have been aware of allegations against me of historic impropriety which have been circulating online. The allegations are completely false.

"Up until now I have chosen not to dignify the false allegations with a response, as it would just give them more oxygen.

"However, the police attended my apartment in Berkshire today without notice, except it would appear to the press.

"I am not presently in the UK but it goes without saying that I will co-operate fully should the police wish to speak to me.

"Beyond stating that today's allegation is completely false it would not be appropriate to say anything further until the police investigation has concluded."

The execution of the search warrant was assisted by officers from the Thames Valley force, within whose area Sunningdale falls.

South Yorkshire's inquiry is being led by Det Supt Matt Fenwick.

Police were unable to say immediately why a property belonging to Richard was being searched, whether he would be interviewed, or whether he was a witness or a suspect or uninvolved.

Richard, 73, is one of the most successful British recording artists and has enjoyed a career that has spanned several decades.

Police say the search is not connected to Operation Yewtree, established after revelations over the Jimmy Savile scandal, which is being run by the Metropolitan police.

No representative for Richard was available to comment immediately. The star is reported to be at a holiday home in Portugal.

Textusa what do you make of Martin Smith commenting on Richard Halls site saying he only knew murat by sight . Do you think its genuine. I know people from his home town and they dont know him.They know people that know him and they say he keeps a low profile and would never discuss. All of a sudden he isending e mails to a public forum. !!!!!!!!. Also surely if he is the main witness in the case SY would have asked him not to discuss.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Total Pageviews

As of Jan 19 2019 we're waiting for Jules to own the blog.

MESSAGE to NEWCOMERS

This blog believes that concerning the MADDIE McCANN case the following happened:

- Maddie McCanndied in the early evening of May 3rd, 2007, in the Apartment 5A. We believe the death to have been accidental.

- At the time of Maddie's death the Praia da Luz's Ocean Club was hosting a large swinging holiday (which we believe took place in various locations in and around Praia da Luz - from Lagos to Sagres) in which the McCanns and friends were part of among many others.

- After Maddie's death a cover-up of unseen proportions and scope took place not to hide Maddie's death but with the main purpose of hiding the presence of swinging. To achieve that, Maddie's death had to be hidden.

- We don't believe there was any sort of negligence involved in the Maddie affair. We don't believe that T9 dined at Tapas Bar from Sunday to Wednesday. We think that on those nights they left their children with professional nannies - as did other guests - to go dine downtown PdL. On Thursday night they did use Tapas but that was simply part of what was to be "negligence"that was required to allow Maddie to be "abducted."

PJ Files

Anonymity

A MAJOR MINORITY

TRUTH is Self-Sustained

Think for yourself

Luz - THE VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED

PdL - What a place. Why does anyone holiday there?It's populated by black heroin addicts, people who rob apartments, gypsies who steal scrap and wood, scruffy moustachioed lurers of children, bogus charity collectors, suspicious street musicians, men lurking near phone booths, glasses man lurking in stairwells, blond men suspiciously lurking outside apartments, soothing couples entering apartments without permission, mysterious gangs of cleaners, men taking photographs of children on beaches... And to top it all, you have to queue for a table booking.Anonymous 11Nov 2013 12:22:00

Maybe because you can always enjoy an ice-cream in the rain?And a dip in an icy pool on arrival always attracts a crowd.Textusa 11Nov 2013 12:28:00

I like the Tapas fragile chairs and tables. They wobble nicely when cutting thick grilled steaks spilling the drinks all about! It's fun for the whole family!Anonymous 11Nov 2013 13:08:00

And how about the number of men seen carrying little blond girls in the street in the middle of the night?Anonymous 11Nov 2013 14:04:00

PdL - where families take it in turn to vomit each night, dog packs pursue and bite joggers, guests fall off catamarans, damage tendons playing tennis, have shaving accidents and stagger around apartments bleeding, domestic appliances need repair, shutters jam, baby monitors won't function at restaurants, travel cots can't be assembled.. sounds like THE VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED.Anonymous 12 Nov 2013 12:37:00

Child Catcher

Algarve - THE REGION OF THE DAMNED

“Algarve – Where Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’s Child Catcher found it ideal to roam the streets with his GYPSY-wagon:“There are children here somewhere. I can smell them. Come along, kiddie-winkies!”Algarve, the REGION OF THE DAMNED.”

Please Reconstruct I:

PJ's Declaration for Reopening Process:

"Madeleine McCann

As is the case with any situation in which a child goes missing, notwithstanding formal dismissal of the inquiry into her disappearance, and just as has always been publicly stated, the Polícia Judiciária never stopped paying close attention to any and all information that might possibly shed light on the whereabouts of the minor Madeleine McCann, the circumstances surrounding her disappearance and the identity of the perpetrator(s).

It was with this goal in mind that in March 2011 the National Director of the Polícia Judiciária entrusted a team of investigators from the North Directorate with the mission of reassessing, as a whole, the vast amount of information gathered during the inquiry, aimed at identifying data for which a more in-depth investigation might be useful and possible.

The reassessment which took place over the last two years and a half suggested new evidence to have surfaced, which, requiring the investigation to proceed, meets the requirements set out by section 279(1) of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure for reopening of the inquiry.

Accordingly, a request for reopening was made to the Public Prosecutor for the jurisdiction of Portimao, and approval granted by the latter. "

The Anne Guedes Transcriptions

Permanent Suggested Reading

Quote

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain

Revelations

"For the righteous, a revelation is a joyous event, the realization of a divine truth but for the wicked, revelations can be far more terrifying, when dark secrets are exposed and sinners are punished for their trespasses." Quote from the TV Series "Revenge" (T2 - Ep9)

Truth

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.Arthur Schopenhauer

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.Winston Churchill

The Revolution

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.George Orwell

The Revolution Goes Viral

"Once information networks become social, the implications are massive: truth can now travel faster than lies, and all propaganda becomes instantly flammable. Sure, you can try to insert spin, but the instantly networked consciousness of millions of people will set it right: they act like white blood cells against infection so that ultimately the truth, or something close to it, persists much longer than disinformation"The Guardian (04Jan12)

We must build dikes of courage to hold back the flood of fear. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts Winston Churchill

PRECIOUS, SO TRUE, WORDS

“One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.”

Kate McCann

(in MADELEINE, by Kate McCann, published in 2011 by Bantam Press, pg. 328)

Imagine...

"This says it all, Ms Loach hit the nail on the head!

"Ms Loach replied: “Imagine the public believing that you covered up your child’s death and then sought to make money out of it. They feel shame, humiliation and anguish."

Yes, that's exactly what we, the public, believe, because that's exactly what they did! And, their "shame, humiliation and anguish" are because they know we know!"

Comment posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Sep 16, 2013, 8:36:00 AM on "McCann vs Amaral Libel Trial" post referring to Mockumentary maker Emma Loach's testimony on the 1st day of said trial as one of McCann's defense witness.

Legal Disclaimer

This blog expresses exclusively the exchange of ideas and of opinions, between WHITE HATS, so is not responsible for the use, misuse or any form of interpretation (mainly misinterpretation) of its content, as although it uses a public medium, as is the internet, it's of PRIVATE nature, very much like any other conversation that takes place in a restaurant, pub or any other public location, where FREEDOM OF SPEECH is exercised.

Sound Explanation for Viciousness

Compliments from the Maggots' Lair:

- “…all the others pale into insignificance when compared to textusa.”

- “I think she should be on the streets and off the internet"

Chinagirl):

- “Disgusting piece of slime.”

(Raptor):

- “Yikes ! That's disgusting.”

(preciousramotswe):

- “You are right. It's a shambolic mess of vitriol and obtuseness. But then they always are. The one that some claimed finally 'proved' who was carrying who during the Smith sighting is a masterpiece of deliberately confused arguments in which labrynthine plots are used to cover how empty the central thesis is”

Out of the Blue (or... Black?)

Hey textusa How are you? well I hope,just thought I would tell you that there are videos about you on youtube, claiming you are an internet predator who stole her daughters identity and prowls the forums for young boys, they say you are welsh!! I think its a case of mistaken identity because are you not portuguese and male? Anyway great blog. keep it up.(Anon., Nov 13th, 05:43)

Conversation from the "Lightless Zone"

sabot:

“Wot Round Table?”

bonnybraes1:

“He/she/it invented a barking mad 'theory' about no-one actually having eaten in the Tapas, because he/she/it couldn't grasp the table arrangements.”

So, because textusa doesn't understand stuff like that, all the Tapas group, the staff, everyone, were lying.

OMG - you don't suppose textusa is actually Gonc, do you?”

sansouci:“Could be Bonny.

The 'theories' about the table and the watersports are really so far beyond bizarre, that I get the feeling that 'textusa' could actually be 'pisstaka'.”

BLACK BUT TRUE WORDS

“Because no-one is more vicious in their search for payback that those who realise they have allowed themselves to be taken for a fool” (A "boomerang" comment left by an Anonymous (Insane?) at Sep 22, 2012 2:06:00 PM)

Insane's IMPORTANT Comments

“…How would any of you idiots like it if your name came into the public domain because you were witness to a crime, and some mad bitch set up a site in which she called you a liar, and claimed you were actually involved in the crime you witnessed? Just ponder on that for a moment”

Aug 28, 2011 9:27:00 AM

“…Where is your sense of shame or decency in accusing innocent witnesses of being involved in covering up the death of a child?

I see no shame or decency on here - just an utter indifference to the rights or feelings of others.

I notice no-one had the balls to answer my question about how you would feel if this was done to you - if you were a witness to a crime and some deranged cow on the internet accused you of being involved. You are all a complete disgrace.”

Aug 28, 2011 1:09:00 PM

FOOT IN THE MOUTH DISEASE

Insane (Nov 14, 2012 11:37:00 PM):

Oh look here - amazing what one can find out by means of a couple of emails to Mark Warner.

You are toast, lady. Finished.

I am going to enjoy this more than is actually decent.

Textusa (Nov 15, 2012 8:50:00 AM):

Well it seems that you're quite privy with the Ocean Club aren't you?

Them giving YOU the information about their own mails?

And you threatening us based on information that YOU apparently got from the Ocean Club.

That's really interesting, isn't it?

Insane (Nov 15, 2012 10:47:00 PM):

One thing I really like about Mark Warner is how helpful their staff are. Really go the extra mile for someone needing information. IYKWIM

:)

Textusa (Nov 16, 2012 11:17:00 AM):

Thank you for confirming that Mark Warner Staff are supplying YOU with information pertaining the Maddie Affair.

Insane's Moment of Rare Beauty

“It would be more suspicious if every account tallied. Police expect to find contradictions, don't tell me you did not know this?” (Nov 22, 2012 3:38:00 PM), when providing an opinion on contradictions from various statements in the PJ Files.

“I don't give a rat's arse about the statements which tally too closely - of course some of them tally too closely, there is an in depth analysis of them on my blog, the one you are not invited to.” (Nov 22, 2012 4:08:00 PM), when, exactly 30 minutes later, provides an opposite opinion, in this case about the fact that some of Tapas' Staff's statements tally too closely.

Insane the Entrepeneur?

"I'd love to stay, but I have a report to write, and it won't do itself, will it?" (Nov 29, 2012 8:14:00 PM)Insane the Disruptor, a new profession shown inNew Career Opportunities

Insane's Proposal for a New Legal Disclaimer

Textusa's new disclaimer. Please ignore all previous versions

''This blog expresses exclusively the exchange of ideas and opinions between people who have sniffed WAY too many solvents, and the imaginary people who live at the bottom of their garden, and so is not responsible for the enormous fines, possible imprisonment, or lifelong incarceration in a mental hospital which may result from it's content, as although it is on the interclickyweb, it is of a private nature, accompanied only by the voices in their heads, very much like any other conversation which takes place in a psychiatric ward between people rocking backwards and forwards in their seat and eating the wallcoverings, where FREEDOM OF SPEECH is exercised in the half hour per day of free association which the inmates are allowed.''Comment NOT published but submitted on Aug 22, 2011 10:17:00 PM

Kate's Round Table

INSANE'S BLOG

We waited so long for the link...

A possible explanation for the wait: "As I have made perfectly clear, you and your sort will never have access to my blog. We are particular about who we invite, and would not include screaming harpies and riff-faff like yourself."unpublished comment from Insane at Nov 23, 2012 10:55:00 AM

Then, a glimmer of hope?“Publishing elsewhere the posts Textusa refuses to publish is also appropriate - and also gives you fools a chance to read what she withholds from you, knowing that you would desert her if you were aware of how much trouble she leads you into.” (Nov 29, 2012 12:40:00 PM)

No, it wasn’t to be so… :“For the last time, you will never be provided with a link for my blog - you are not welcome there and will never be given access”(Nov 29, 2012 1:38:00 PM)